​If you have been following my blog, you will already know that The Clean Water Rule is the new regulation re-defining Waters of the United States. “The Rule” is found in the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 124, Monday, June 29, 2015. “The Rule” became effective 60 days later on August 28, 2015, until October 9, 2015, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordered a nationwide stay.

In attempting to understand the criticisms of the Clean Water Rule and objections of vocal stakeholders, I decided to provide a list of the arguments that have been put forth in the court cases brought against the EPA (cases involving 100+ plaintiffs/petitioners who are state entities, natural resource departments of states, commerce organizations, and a plethora of other entities).

Here is a list of these objections to the Clean Water Rule. They range from the legal procedural development of the regulation to the science behind it. 1. [The Clean Water Rule] granted too much federal jurisdiction over what has previously been thought of as state-controlled waters. [Look back to my blog regarding the Rivers & Harbors Act of 1890 and 1899 where compromises were made to recognize state authority over interstate waters.] Here it is thought that the agencies are exceeding the Clean Water Act (CWA) authority and The Rule is inconsistent with CWA’s plain language. 2. [The Clean Water Rule] was not in line with existing precedent. This is certainly a debatable point since there have been calls on both sides to clarify previous confusing court decisions. 3. The adoption [of The Clean Water Rule] failed to follow mandatory federal rule-making procedures. Some argue there were substantial changes to the proposed rule without additional public comment before the final rule was released (most specifically the “arbitrary” distances in section (a8) of The Rule). Therefore, the final rule was not a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule. The agencies failed to make all information relied upon available to the public, and failed to respond appropriately to comments. 4. There are also concerns regarding constitutional violations of the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment (State’s Rights), and the Due Process Clause 5. Miscellaneous other violations of several acts: Regulatory Flexibility Act; Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; National Environmental Policy Act; Anti-Lobbying Act (agencies pushing the boundaries of social media in informing the public of The Rule); and Executive Orders.

Court decisions (specifically the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota) so far have listed several objections to the Clean Water Rule: 1. Tributary definition TOO broad. 2. No evidence of connectivity of adjacent waters to traditionally navigable waters. 3. Lack of scientific support for The Rule; making it arbitrary or capricious.

So, when will we know one way or the other if The Clean Water Rule will become law, again? It is my understanding that it could be weeks or even monthsbefore the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit announces a decision regarding who (the District Courts OR the Circuit Court of Appeals) has the jurisdiction to hear the court cases brought against the EPA . Compliance issues with the Administrative Procedure Act are what is being reviewed with this question. [Oral arguments were presented December 8, 2015.] With the stay in place [which all parties and the court agreed the circuit court has the authority to issue], there isno rush for a decision.